This post from a theology student:
Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person believes.
Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.
Calvinism holds to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Arminianism holds to the notion of 'conditional salvation' - where a believer in Christ can, of their own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation.
Which are you ?
[939:3384]
29 comments:
i am a sputnikist - i turned off the road long before reaching the junctions of these two european fools :)
it seems to me that these guys have built (somewhat shaky) doctrines to try and explain other peoples motivations and responses to their own beliefs.
i think both views on atonement are true, but neither are prescriptively helpful. yes, Jesus died for the elect. but who are the elect? yes his death is not effectual until a person believes, but why does that matter? your ticket is not effective until you reach the turnstile! what unbeliever gives a monkeys about following Jesus? - an unbeliever doesn't follow Jesus by definition!
i think the concept of resisting grace is nonsensical. 'resistance' is not a noun that is compatible with 'grace' any more than a colour has a smell. if a defendant goes to court and is found guilty, he is sentenced as charged - or in this case, unreasonably and favourably acquited. i have never met anyone who would even try to resist acquittal - only people who don't accept some, or all, aspects of the judicial system. but again, a believer in God's judicial system would no longer be an unbeliever, by definition!!
Hey Sputnik--your kind of bro-in-law here. I've just been turned on to your blog by Nemo.
I think you hit the nail on the head with: "i think both views on atonement are true, but neither are prescriptively helpful."... Faith is about what is -helpful- to pointing me toward Jesus, not about what might be propositionally true.
I really enjoyed your thoughtful elaboration.
Yes but say you get free tickets to a top flight game, say Notts County versus Stoke City, you reach the turnstile but you might not choose to go through? That's resisting grace, it is nonsensical, given the quality of the teams, but possible.
Or perhaps all the people who got free tickets to the game and went, only went because the guy giving them away knew those people would use them?
Who does the choosing you or the guy giving away the free tickets (based on his foreknowledge)?
In terms of establishing an evangelism policy it may be helpful. Am I wasting my time giving away free tickets to a game if that person has no intention of ever going in the first place?
Funny Nemo =) But isn't that Sputnik's point about helpfulness? Unless we're God, there's no way for us to know who has or has not the intention of (to continue the analogy) going through the turnstile. Thus, even in terms of an evangelism policy, the discussion is only one of intellectual trivia because I could never reasonably deduce who the "non-elect" or "resistors" are. I could not knowingly narrow my search for takers on the free tickets anyway.
To my mind, questions of 'eternal salvation' (who's saved? who isn't? and how? or why?) are usually just intellectual trivia. They only ever serve to divide people along lines that are pretty obvious anyway (say, believer and unbeliever... or -insert two denominations here-). I'm not suggesting the theology isn't true or that we shouldn't believe it; but I am suggesting that, if believers are supposed to be salt of the earth, the Holy Spirit is a heck of a lot saltier (or helpful, if you will) than theology.
Yes I think you are probably spot on, but, I was wondering who we think is in control? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart". How did He know him? Did he just have knowledge of him? Does this apply just to Jeremiah or some christians too? How much of what we do is us or the Lord? Does the Lord through the influence of the Holy Spirit merely guide or control? I'm just curious.
welcome to the shark tank vinceation :)
Nemo, after our discussion this evening... I like the Calvin v. Arminius question as it pertains to our life on earth (as opposed to pertaining to our eternal salvation): You ask about the Lord controlling us (Calvin) v. the Lord guiding us (Arminius). There is helpfulness here: I can think of times in my life when each of the two understandings offered me comfort.
Thus, on these terms, sometimes it is helpful for me to be Calvinist, and sometimes it is helpful for me to be Arminianist.
Is God in control? This is my take on it: God is judge, jury and executioner. He has complete authority. But he does not control peoples choice. The torah, prophets, scriptures and new testament all pertain to this.
Do you remember that football game when the referee awarded that penalty, but the team refused to take it because they didn’t believe that they deserved it?
I don’t.
Evangelism policy? This is my view: It’s a bounded-set/centred-set thing again. I think that religious groups have, and in most cases unintentionally, given birth to a mindset of ‘this is what the game is all about (faith definitions), this is the turnstile (salvation definitions mostly), here are the tickets (and this is where a subliminal desire for human authority creeps in) – and look they’re free woohoo!’.
The net result is a bunch of followers who are eager to ‘give out free tickets’. An obvious reaction.
The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, eager match-goers with free tickets to (yes - even topflight notts county) games – can’t give them away. However enthusiastic. Even in sparkly glitter writing, even downloaded free from a clever interactive website, even with a free give-away car from general motors or a good one from ron dennis, even if accompanied with a clever message in apologetics delivered by a youtube clip or animated video, even – and here’s one for the christians who live near me who do ‘prophetic treasure hunts on the streets’ – even if accompanied by a message of divine knowledge about that person, you cannot give them away.
Jesus/ Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua said that “… If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead …” [B’rit Chadasha|NT:Luk16]
The second problem is this: Under this mindset, there is a danger that a desire for converts can become a substitute for the simplicity of genuinely loving each other.
Jesus/ Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua said “… Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength…” and “… Love your neighbor as yourself …” [B’rit Chadasha|Mark12]
Maybe there is no turnstile. Maybe instead by doing these things we bring the game to the people.
Is God in Control? The Apostle Paul wrote to the christians in Ephesus - having being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
If God hasn't control of our lives how can he work all things according to his will? If God has already decided what will happen, how can we have any free will? It would be impossible for him to change his plan every second as we make our own choices? Wouldn't this be a contradiction?
Schmelzer - I disagree, it seems this guy has built a (somewhat shaky) doctrine to try and explain and justify his own church experience. There has to be a turnstile we pass through? This has to be a bounded set?
My school's doctrine is that unless you are a member of the Jesus' church, ie a christian then there should be no membership of a local church. That in mine opinion is am abomination in the sight of God, but I say nothing and toe the line because I like and need the certificate they hand out.
Jesus is the turnstile. [NT:John10|B’rC:Yoch10]
All viewpoints that we subscribe to are bounded sets.
Schmelzer is trying to explain, yes, and justify, maybe, but is that wrong?
If someone gives us a formula, and we subsequently experience exception after exception to that formula, then we can do one of two things:
Either, we can add explanation to explanation to try and include the exceptions to the proverbial rule.
Or, we can conclude that the formula is wrong.
I am reading an interesting paper at the moment which talks about ‘Copernican revolution’.
Personally I associate it with a humble willingness to learn and an admission that maybe we have it all wrong, rather than the pride associated with adding ballast to a heavy mistake in order to make it immovable.
As an example, it does not help me if someone cites Paul in order to convince me of Pauline doctrine. A convincing case can come only from ‘outside of the set’. Paul himself would never have elevated the prospect of following himself above following Jesus. Since we have to, largely, speculate about the people and situations into which Paul’s letters were launched, why not cite Jesus instead?
Re your school’s doctrine, can you explain why you disagree? What is the reaction of your teachers to such an explanation? How does this explanation fit with the school curriculum?
Certificates are necessary documents that 'authorised bodies' use to 'authorise' competence in others. They are also used to help us feel encouragement in our development, make us feel that we are appreciated and belong, and keep us sane in this crazy world of calibrated progress and measured performance. All of which I think are excellent reasons within a set.
Personally, I subscribe to one possible moral message from the kid’s movie ‘Cars’ by Disney Pixar – I like the idea of valuing the journey above obtaining a ‘garage full of empty cups’. But while my screwed up head perpetually wrestles with this concept, I create by own trophies :S
There ain't no life in ísms. My recommendation: Seek life.
Jesus is the turnstile, agreed - I love John's Gospel. But what are you saying about the Pauline epistles sputnik? All scripture is good? I don't think Paul was saying we should follow Paul, rather he was speaking about predestination and God's will. How does free will measure up in comparison to the statements in Eph 1. You know what I'm saying?
Personally I acknowledge 99% of what my school teaches albeit slightly conservative in nature. But church should have an unrestrictive open doors policy and mirror the life of JC - he hung round with 'sinners' a lot. Maybe my school just meant that church 'membership' was open to the elect, which is OK I guess.
No life in 'isms', very profoud. Life in JC! But what does this life look like?
I agree that isms aren’t an end in themselves, but I think they are a necessary means to an end. They are the flippers and springy mushrooms in our pinball machines of identity. Isms are bounded sets or groups of bounded sets that help us understand where we stand relative to others.
Even when we are free, we must acknowledge that freedom is relative.
Otherwise a free man’s testimony is foolishness to one bound. And vice versa.
Regarding the Pauline epistles;
When he wrote “…The entire Kitvei HaKodesh is Hashem breathed and useful for hora'ah (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for training… “ [NT|B’rC:2Tim3],
surely Paul was referring to Kitvei HaKodesh – the Hebrew Scriptures that he taught from – as being God breathed.
If he were claiming that his own letters were ‘God breathed’ then he would have effectively been telling the reader to ‘follow him’ as opposed to ‘following Jesus’.
Regarding Pauline epistles. The answer is yes it refers to Torah maybe OT. My professor actually said OT, but I wasn't pushing him on this point. The NT wasn't around when Paul wrote his letters.
I think Paul does differentiate between his own thoughts and the doctrine of JC under the influence of the Holy Spirit. For instance, Pauls words on marriage expound upon those of JC because JC only offered limited words on that subject for an example.
Having said that we need to affirm all scripture as God breathed in our current setting? What say you?
where does this view come from?
Me? 1 Cor 7:10 & 1 Cor 7:12
Like I say, I think we are on thin ice when we try and build doctrine around letters that are addressed to somebody else.
Especially when we understand so little about the recipients' situation.
Have you read the letter that Paul received from the Corinthian believers, to which he is replying?
From the first seven chapters of the reply you refer to [NT|B’rC:1Cor], there is evidence that, in some places, the recipients included messianic jews, who, pre-Jesus, already had a marital-social-structure built on torah and rabbinic teaching.
The letter was apparently launched into a mess of reported sexual immorality. But equally, it was launched into a mess of leaders trying to cast judgments on those ‘sinners’ so that they themselves could ‘be in charge’. A practice that has gone on ever since in religious organisations, and still today is a motivation for people wanting to bring Paul’s letters out of their intended context.
Didn’t Jesus say “… If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone …” [B’rC:Yoch8|NT:John8] ?
It is my view that the kingdom of God is not about being ‘big fish’ in the church tent, but about being plankton in the world.
It appears to me that Paul was helping the early followers to apply the teaching of Jesus/ Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua to their own situations.
In the places where his guidance appears to be different to that of Jesus, sometimes Paul says so. Where he doesn’t say so, personally I vote for Jesus and wrestle with the difference.
A Copernican God-seeker might try to move the epicentre of his thinking away from himself, or organisational leadership, or the church body, or Paul, and put it on Jesus/ Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua. I think this is what Christianity was intended to be, but sadly no longer is.
Regarding the 'all scripture is God-breathed' stuff... Karl Barth's statement makes a lot of sense to me (I think I'm paraphrasing): Rather than "The Bible IS God's Word", he asserted "The Bible CONTAINS God's Word."
To me, this settles a lot of confusion when it comes to facts like: the canon was put together by a church council, not handed down in bound form by the hand of God; or the writings are ad hoc documents by people with clear opinions/issues.
At the same time, I can totally believe that the Holy Spirit was present in the compiling and preserving of the canon as I read it today; and, thus, that the Bible can point me toward Jesus as no other source can.
I've been reading a summary of a book I'd like to read in full on related issues: 'God's Word in Human Words' by Kenton L Sparks
Was Paul pen pals with church in Corinth then? Actually the first epistle to the church in Corinth was actually the second, someone misplaced the first, naughty naughty.
Regarding Chapter 7, Paul repeats Jesus' teaching, but where Jesus words do not cover the entire topic Paul makes advice.
You know we do not fully understand the locally cultural 1st century situation, but I think we need to distill the message from the culture if at all possible if we are to use it for life applciation.
With regard to life application the church teaches today. Chapter 13 is possible the most famous verses on Love in the Bible. I have heard it used in 21st century churches for weddings and funerals. Yet Paul was addressing the church in Corinth who were overusing the gift of tongues-speaking. I sometimes wonder if we don't take the entire Bible out of context and read too much in to it that isn't there.
I also believe, vinceation, that the bible points me towards Jesus/God. But, despite good intention, I hear a lot of teaching, preaching, views and interpretations of what the bible says, that do not do the same.
Regarding his letter, Paul was writing “…concerning the things in your iggeret, let's take up the next inyan (topic)…” [NT|B’rC:1Cor7] i.e. he was responding to a letter.
I agree that “… we need to distill the message from the culture if at all possible if we are to use it for life application …” but the trouble arises when, in our eagerness to find a life application that is not there, or we try and apply teaching that is not directed at us.
Bill was telling Fred to jump the gate. So I jumped the gate.
But I am not Fred.
Re funerals, yes I agree – many bible passages have a romantic or comforting tone when read in isolation. A minority of people who require a funeral ceremony in my country might be seeking God, but I think most are looking for peace and comfort. In the absence of having the power to resurrect, or having an argument about salvation doctrine over the coffin – which I can’t imagine would provide much comfort - I think an inappropriately chosen poem is the best we can do.
As for ‘weddings’, yes – wedding planning is an industry all of it’s own. And sometimes God gets a mention. And talk of covenants can sound a bit dull in isolation. And maybe unbelievers get married 'before God' because of a fondness of the architecture.
On another tack, here’s food for thought … multiple times in the letter, Paul expounds on something once said (or written) “Everything is permissible” … do you think he was quoting Jesus, himself or another?
No I think he was quoting someone in the Corinthian congregation. Probably one of those well known "Corinthian" sayings. The originally text would not have had quotation marks, because they didn't exist. Some Bible scholars would probably argue to leave the quotation marks out since where the orignal text was silent on the issue so should the translation? ps another text I often hear used to preach life application, like whether to go down the pub and get beered up, yet Pauls was talking about meat that had previously used as idol sacrifices!
This topic still riles me (it came up again yesterday) and so I getting some more bang for my buck out of it. I still think that the Calvinistic view is totally heresy and they have mis-read scripture. Surely surely as scripture teaches God "desires all to be saved" 1 Tim 2:4. Isn't it the fact that come the end of time (and only then) we could look back and say those who are saved were predestined Eph 1:11. You can't take this scripture and play it back to mean that Jesus only came to save an elite set of individuals he chose before the creation of the world (the Calvinistic view of things), really folks. Maybe God does not exist in a time space continium. Maybe when we try to understand and make sense of God it's just impossible and out of scope of our mentality.
Did Jesus come to save everyone or just the "elect" whoever they are and obvioulsy not everyone? It's a simple question yet seems to split the Evangelical/Protestant church?
Nemo, it's a shame that such a thing causes so much division. I read a great comment from Lesslie Newbigin on the topic: Jesus' central teaching on Judgement in the Gospel is that it will be surprising (the last shall be first and the first last, etc...). The question is a tension, no doubt, and the problem is when one tries to cut that tension by going to one end or another, because then it's no longer a tension.
As I see it, it's part of the human condition to want certainty, a straight answer, because we think if we could just figure such-and-such out, our minds would be at peace and we could trust God wholly. But, in reality, I think the quest for certainty seems to accomplish the opposite: we cut tensions by trusting in our own intellect and cunning so we can feel safe, rather than finding true peace in the tension trusting God with the questions too big for us to answer.
Vince, I would like to read Leslie Newbigin on this topic. I'm not sure the gospel presents a dichotomy, but there are certainly scriptures that seem to support both arguments. For me personally as I come to present that gospel to a non-christian could I really put my hand on my heart and say that Christ died for your sins? I think that is my main bone of contention.
Post a Comment